With his inauguration speech, President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) has successfully negotiated several dangers which the Americans, the Chinese and the Taiwanese people themselves have created. For example, Chen has received considerable criticism from both the Chinese and the Americans about his plan for a new constitution. The Chinese complained this amounted to a declaration of independence and the Americans urged caution so as not to upset the Chinese. The inconsistency of the Chinese, who have had at least four state constitutions since the establishment of the People's Republic of China in 1949, has become lost in the rhetoric.
Taiwan clearly does need a new constitution. A Constitution written for a dictatorship of half a billion people in 1947 does not work for a democracy of 23 million people in the 21st century. Some two-thirds of the Constitution's articles require revision or excision. In addition, the new constitution will need to account for changes in institutions as Taiwan adapts its government to its new democratic climate.
Clearly, a new constitution will require substantial support within Taiwan to be legitimate. This important process of gathering consensus in both the preparation and the approval of the document cannot be rushed.
In order to gain this consensus, Chen has compromised. Rather than have the new constitution approved by referendum, he has declared that the new constitution should be approved by the processes laid out in the current Constitution, which use the National Assembly. Chen hopes that the new constitution will incorporate the use of referendums for future constitutional revisions.
In addressing China, Chen also expressed moderation. He reiterated the "five noes" when he "reaffirmed the promises and principles set forth in my inaugural speech in 2000." He restated that the new constitution would not change Taiwan's national sovereignty or territory or touch on issues of unification and independence, in part because Taiwan itself has not reached consensus on these issues.
Chen noted that the future of the relationship with China remained undetermined and there could even be unification between the two sides. However, he stressed that any decision about Taiwan's future must have "the consent of the 23 million people of Taiwan."
Chen stated he would establish a committee with people from all political parties and various walks of life to outline plans for peaceful development across the Strait. Again, he is seeking to broaden agreement across society as a whole.
A considerable part of Chen's speech attempts to bring together the divided people of Taiwan. Even though it was clear on election night that the pan-blue camp required new leadership, the ongoing saga of the recount -- which Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Lien Chan (連戰) prolonged by his continuous adding of new conditions -- has postponed these changes. The old leadership of Lien and People First Party Chairman James Soong (宋楚瑜) continues to attempt to extend its rule through such maneuvers as unification of the blue parties and mandatory attendance at the protest rally on inauguration day.
A vibrant democracy requires a strong opposition. Clearly the KMT needs to rejuvenate itself and certainly it cannot do so if it relies primarily on Mainlanders for support.
Let us hope, for the sake of Taiwan's democracy, that the pan-blue camp can reinvigorate itself so that the Dec. 11 legislative elections prove both fair and competitive.
Bruce Jacobs is professor of Asian languages and cultures and director of the Taiwan Research Unit at Monash University in Melbourne, Australia
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (傅?萁) has caused havoc with his attempts to overturn the democratic and constitutional order in the legislature. If we look at this devolution from the context of a transition to democracy from authoritarianism in a culturally Chinese sense — that of zhonghua (中華) — then we are playing witness to a servile spirit from a millennia-old form of totalitarianism that is intent on damaging the nation’s hard-won democracy. This servile spirit is ingrained in Chinese culture. About a century ago, Chinese satirist and author Lu Xun (魯迅) saw through the servile nature of
In their New York Times bestseller How Democracies Die, Harvard political scientists Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt said that democracies today “may die at the hands not of generals but of elected leaders. Many government efforts to subvert democracy are ‘legal,’ in the sense that they are approved by the legislature or accepted by the courts. They may even be portrayed as efforts to improve democracy — making the judiciary more efficient, combating corruption, or cleaning up the electoral process.” Moreover, the two authors observe that those who denounce such legal threats to democracy are often “dismissed as exaggerating or
Monday was the 37th anniversary of former president Chiang Ching-kuo’s (蔣經國) death. Chiang — a son of former president Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石), who had implemented party-state rule and martial law in Taiwan — has a complicated legacy. Whether one looks at his time in power in a positive or negative light depends very much on who they are, and what their relationship with the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) is. Although toward the end of his life Chiang Ching-kuo lifted martial law and steered Taiwan onto the path of democratization, these changes were forced upon him by internal and external pressures,
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus in the Legislative Yuan has made an internal decision to freeze NT$1.8 billion (US$54.7 million) of the indigenous submarine project’s NT$2 billion budget. This means that up to 90 percent of the budget cannot be utilized. It would only be accessible if the legislature agrees to lift the freeze sometime in the future. However, for Taiwan to construct its own submarines, it must rely on foreign support for several key pieces of equipment and technology. These foreign supporters would also be forced to endure significant pressure, infiltration and influence from Beijing. In other words,